Speed camera laws infringe basic rights?

Freefaller · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:04

Oakesy2001uk said:
dark visor and I'm happy!

It will be personalized numberplates or something daft, where a person has one, not a car.

Dark visors rock

You know they were talking about introducing number plates for the front of bikes...

I can't find the article at the moment - but that would suck.

Freefaller · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:05

Firestar_3x said:
Yea interesting system that, except when you have more than one driver per car etc.

Personally the way for the future will be a chip + transmitter in the car, each person has a unique ID and when they drive the car this is sent to the chip, if the camera goes off it reads the chip and knows whos driving ©

Nanny state here we come... :/ Or should it be "is continuing..." :/

Firestar_3x · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:05

stoofa said:
This whole thread is yet another way people are trying to get out of not paying their fine for speeding.

Kinda, i don't mind being busted for speeding i mean if you do the crime you've gotta do the time, but its the methord of capturing people that i hate, more vans + actual people on the road instead of fixed machines!

Ring Peace · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:07

Firestar_3x said:
Front facing cameras and a database of everyone ere we come

So we all remove our front licence plates, where a balaclava and speed through front facing cameras just like the bikers do.

Back OT, our present government is slowly eroding our ability to not incriminate ourselves. They introduced a while back a law which made it an offence to not answer questions when interviewed under caution, fortunately our european friends overturned this draconian step are reinstated our "right to silence".

Answering the "who was driving" question will remain until some brave and/or wealthy person hes the stomach to take it to the european courts.

Freefaller · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:09

Firestar_3x said:
Kinda, i don't mind being busted for speeding i mean if you do the crime you've gotta do the time, but its the methord of capturing people that i hate, more vans + actual people on the road instead of fixed machines!

Yeah because you're such a criminal doing a few mph over the limit. I reckon people ought to be hung drawn and quartered for even contemplating touching the speed limit.

I agree - they invest so much money into sneakily trying to "get" people who are probably driving on empty clear roads in good conditions a few mph over the limit.

As I've said before - I have no problems with cameras outside schools and hospitals - on big open roads and carriageways there is no argument that you can win me over on that they are any good or not money generating pathetic and useless expendatures that the government feel they have to do.

Luke · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:09

Freefaller said:
Dark visors rock

You know they were talking about introducing number plates for the front of bikes... I can't find the article at the moment - but that would suck.

How many bikes have the kind of surface area needed for a legible plate that would be visible at 20 feet from the front?
None that I can think of, so I'd hope that it wouldn't happen.

Replace all GATSO's with Truvello's please!!!!!

pinkaardvark · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:10

stoofa said:
Can't see why he shouldn't be allowed to post an anti-speeding statement.
This whole thread is yet another way people are trying to get out of not paying their fine for speeding.

I've never been fined for speeding, and hopefully never will be. Doesn't mean I don't object to the legal paraphenalia surrounding speeding convictions. The system and apparatus is wrong and needs fixing, i'm in no way promoting speeding. So I don't see why we have to turn a thread about the legality of the processes into an anti-speed thread like all the others. I would have thought those involved would have gotten bored of the subject anyways, both sides always just post the same old tired arguments.

Firestar_3x · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:11

I was under the impression front plates got taken off bikes cause they cut people up badly when the crashed into something/someone?

Freefaller · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:11

emailiscrap said:
How many bikes have the kind of surface area needed for a legible plate that would be visible at 20 feet from the front?
None that I can think of, so I'd hope that it wouldn't happen.

Replace all GATSO's with Truvello's please!!!!!

Well the were thinking of making just standard ugly plates that hang off the front

Or stuck on (like some cars have) on the front mud guards and other places, or just have a plinth bolted on... seriously, they were seriously thinking about it.

The other thing they were wanting to do was to have the tax disc at the front so at least that could be identified...

Truvello's and SPECS are gooood

Oakesy2001uk · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:12

stoofa said:
Can't see why he shouldn't be allowed to post an anti-speeding statement.
This whole thread is yet another way people are trying to get out of not paying their fine for speeding.

This is a motors forum full of people who are pasionate about driving. Being passionate a lot of us break the speed limit every now and again, but on the whole I'd say we are good drivers and OCUKers dont seem to have caused many accidents, I know I havn't injured anyone or damaged anything ever. Yet the ****'s who drive like plebs/get drunk/dont pay attention/cant see etc... get away with it because the government are convinced that speed kills and speed cameras are all thats needed, doing 4.6 miles per hour over the limit is more dangerous than all the things above, so they can save money by not employing any traffic cops! More cops and more training would reduce accidents far more than stupid yellow boxes, but that wouldent make any money.

If we can tear them down and get some traffic policing back I will be more than happy! and If I do get a speeding ticket (none yet) I'll take it on the chin because I was breaking the law and there is a punishment for that! But If I can get out of it I will, I would be stupid not to!

Luke · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:12

The old front plates on bikes were only readable from the side so wouldn't be captured by cameras anyway.

Freefaller · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:13

Firestar_3x said:
I was under the impression front plates got taken off bikes cause they cut people up badly when the crashed into something/someone?

They were the ones vertically mounted on the front mud guard - they were side on anyway so would be useless on a camera.

Luke · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:13

Freefaller said:
Truvello's and SPECS are gooood

Never sure about SPECS on the bike, although the cameras are generally forward facing, I've seen the odd isolated camera rearward facing that makes me a bit nervous!

Freefaller · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:14

emailiscrap said:
Never sure about SPECS on the bike, although the cameras are generally forward facing, I've seen the odd isolated camera rearward facing that makes me a bit nervous!

I've only seen "rear" facing ones for the opposite carriageway - I have yet to see one facing backwards on any gantry. You've made me nervous now....

Oh and I don't go past Truvellos at 100s of mph, I tend to creep over the limit ever so slightly, and concentrate on the road ahead rather than stupid yellow boxes on the side of the road.

Oakesy2001uk · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:15

Freefaller said:
I've only seen "rear" facing ones for the opposite carriageway - I have yet to see one facing backwards on any gantry. You've made me nervous now....

and me!

Dolph · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:24

stoofa said:
Can't see why he shouldn't be allowed to post an anti-speeding statement.
This whole thread is yet another way people are trying to get out of not paying their fine for speeding.

Actually, the issue of speeding is irrelevant in this case.

What the case is about is whether the government can compel someone to incriminate themselves, and whether they can, if they refuse to do so, charge them under a different legislation.

It's akin to saying to a murder suspect "You can either confess, or we'll charge you with 'withholding information to a murder inquiry' that carries the same sentance as being convicted"

It's not a speed issue, it's a justice issue.

dirtydog · 27 Sep 2006 at 11:29

Dolph said:
Actually, the issue of speeding is irrelevant in this case.

What the case is about is whether the government can compel someone to incriminate themselves, and whether they can, if they refuse to do so, charge them under a different legislation.

It's akin to saying to a murder suspect "You can either confess, or we'll charge you with 'withholding information to a murder inquiry' that carries the same sentance as being convicted"

It's not a speed issue, it's a justice issue.

Indeed, I think a very important principle is at stake here. The government must not be allowed to ignore or bypass a fundamental tenet of British justice just because it is convenient for them to do so. It sets a dangerous precedent.

grahamjenks · 27 Sep 2006 at 12:03

Maybe they should just change the law so that the owner of the vechicle recieves all punishment, that way no need to worry who was actually driving at the time!

I understand the speeding doesnt kill arguement - but breaking the law is breaking the law - if you don't like it campaign to change don't take it into your own hands.

leaskovski · 27 Sep 2006 at 12:10

grahamjenks said:
Maybe they should just change the law so that the owner of the vechicle recieves all punishment, that way no need to worry who was actually driving at the time!

I understand the speeding doesnt kill arguement - but breaking the law is breaking the law - if you don't like it campaign to change don't take it into your own hands.

Or just change the cameras to better res and forward facing so that the drivers face is caught?

Cyanide · 27 Sep 2006 at 12:13

Freefaller said:
I've only seen "rear" facing ones for the opposite carriageway - I have yet to see one facing backwards on any gantry. You've made me nervous now....

Don't go on the M25 then